memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:A Taste of Armageddon (episode)
Production timeline The 1981 edition of Star Trek Compendium lists this episode as being filmed in late December 1966 and early January 1967. It lists the next episode, as being filmed in middle and late December 1966. I'm not sure whether the episodes were filmed out of an assigned production order, or if the author had mixed up the filming dates for those two episodes or whether post-production work was being taken into account for one of them--Robert Treat 06:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Argona or Argana II? At the end, Kirk orders course to be set for a planet, either Argana or Argona II. DVD subtitles spell it Argona, while online transcripts http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/24tastearmageddontrans.htm spell it Argana. A quick google search brought up hits for both spellings, so does anyone have access to sth. better, like shooting scripts? If not, which takes precedence? Kennelly 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC) The script spells it as "Argona." So, it needs to be changed here and a redirect needs to be put in place. I'll send a copy of script page if anyone doubts.Sir Rhosis 08:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Statue vs Statue I've changed the things about the statue in Anan's room, because they are not the same, and to prove the point here is a link with both statues. http://supernovawd.netfirms.com/worlds/Scalos/eminiar7connection.htm Lt Osborne I understood that the Lt Osborn thing wasn't necessarily a nitpick. I was referring to the other one when I wrote the change, and decided to snip the other while I was here. Its decidedly pointless. Does every actor who went creditless in an episode deserve a specific mention in the episode description? The hundreds of actors on the DS9 promenade, the extras in ten forward? The point of memory alpha is to mention when things *do* happen. Not when they *don't* (unless its genuinely note worthy, and I'd find it a difficult proposition to defend this as note worthy). I'm not going to revert the reversion, but I really do think I was right to delete it. -- Hossrex 10:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC) :Read the note. It isn't just that he is uncredited, it is that he is also usually incorrectly credited. It is worth pointing out to people that see these other sources that they are, in fact, wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Because one person got confused, and wrote the phrasing with a potentially more general phrasing then was perhaps warranted, that makes it worthy of Memory Alpha? Should it be noted on the "Assignment Earth" page that Jack Nesvig, and Paul Baxley are "often" confused with one another? Look at the Frank da Vinci page. See who he plays in "A taste of Armageddon". It isn't a Star Fleet officer. Considering that you're one of the biggest "no nitpick" people around... I would have expected you to understand that the things people write on TOS pages is often just garbage, and overstated to say the least (THIS IS THE MOST FAMOUS BLOOPER EVER... where Kirks arm shifts magically from one place to another on the arm of his chair!). How about this... lets find a citation for this? Isn't that a reasonable thing to ask for? -- Hossrex 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC) ::I agree with Hossrex. The note would have to cite at least one source that incorrectly credits him to remain. – Cleanse 08:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC) :Hossrex, take a chill pill and don't make this personal please. There is no need to go after me with statements like "I would expect you of all people" etc. I don't think it is a nitpick/blooper at all, hence why I am not treating it as one. This is simply not a case of "MOST FAMOUS BLOOPER OF ALL OF TOS", just read the note and you will see it is not written as such. I won't treat it as something it isn't. It would be nice if we had a source, so let's slap an and move on. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC) :::My copy of the Star Trek Concordance does indeed incorrectly credit da Vinci as Osborne, if that helps. - Bridge 12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Quoted from Cobra ''"I would expect you of all people". '' But thats not what I said at all. Thats not even what I wrote. I said "I would have expected you to understand". Thats not an exclamation of incredulity, its a statement that from what I've seen you, I had expected you to agree. It seems we've found a source for the statement, as long as we have a citation, I've got no gripe with it. :) Hossrex 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Doohan note Someone added this: *''As a Lieutenant in the Royal Canadian Artillery, James Doohan was threatened with Court Martial for real, for saying "No sir, I will not," to a visiting Colonel, when he realised a training exercise order would entail blowing the heads off some of his own men. Fortunately, his immediate superiors backed him up and, like his fictional character, he was eventually promoted to Captain.'' What does this have to do with this particular episode? And what is the source of this info? --From Andoria with Love 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) :If this is true I think that it is an interesting point. Having a source would be nice, though. - Jackoverfull 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC) :: For the James Doohan page....maybe. --Alan 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC) :::Good point. - Jackoverfull 00:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Ambassador Fox Is there any explaination as to how Ambassador Fox beamed to the planet without lowering screens?--Redknight 18:48, December 16, 2009 (UTC) :This bugged me too. And here is the clue! In the episode Anan7 is told at one point that the ship is out of range (of the planets weapons). Also Kirk (or Spock - tired, brain fog) tells the Enterprise to go to maximum phaser range. So we know the ship is moving in and out, and around the planet (non-geostaionary orbit.) So once out of range of the planet's weapons - maybe they dropped their shields to transport the Ambassador and his aide, then brought them up before orbiting back into the firing radius. Second theory is their orbit took them out of the line-of-sight-weapons, but they could still beam down (w/ again shields briefly lowered.) Unrelated observation on another issue: Sonic disruptors can work through space - because one targeting a vehicle in space would have them take the form of beamed EMF energy that penetrates hulls and produces, among other things, frequency vibrations in humans sonic range - at intense vibration levels, though. :A friend from the old days who vividly remembers watching first run TOS in Living Color. Let's buy some Prell shampoo! 10:16, May 21, 2010 (UTC) Removed * Many years after this episode, in 2003, a Star Wars comic featured a planet called Vendikar Station, which might be a reference to the Vendikar planet in this episode. Removed by . - 17:50, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :I removed the following: *This episode featured anomalous functioning of the above 3 main systems of the Starship Enterprise. While the ship was under attack from the sonic disruptors of Eminiar VII, Scotty stated that they had difficulty retaliating with phasers while they were defending the ship with the shields: "We can't fire full phasers with our screens up, and we can't lower our screens with their disruptors on us." Such a limitation in the shield / phaser interaction is not hinted at in any other episode of any Star Trek series, since starships routinely fired phasers with shields up, and we never saw any attempt to maximise firepower by lowering shields. *On the other hand, the shields in this episode had the unusual ability of allowing standard Federation transporters to beam people through out of the ship while they are still up at full power. In Act Three, Fox, fooled by the Eminians' show of goodwill, ordered Scotty to lower the ship's shields while he beamed down to Eminiar VII to initiate diplomatic contact. Scotty, sensing treachery in the Eminians, refused to lower shields, risking court-martial in his defiance. However, we then see Fox beaming down to Eminiar anyway. That the shields were never lowered is confirmed by Anan's instructions: "The minute their screens are down, open fire." Since the Enterprise never came under fire within this time, we can conclude that the shields were indeed up the whole time at Scotty's insistence. :This seems like original research to me, discussing a nitpick. If it isn't, then it should probably be discussed at the article on shields.--31dot 21:16, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Ambassador Fox's Aide Does anyone know for sure whether Ambassador Fox's Aide is killed or just wounded? What was the name of that Actor? -- 11:04, October 25, 2012 (UTC) :From the uncredited co-star section: ::* Malone as Fox's aide :All the details known are contained there. -- sulfur (talk) 11:42, October 25, 2012 (UTC) Updated enquiry: 9 November 2012 Thanks for the replies. Uncredited support actors on star Trek often provide invaluable background colour. In this case, Ambassador Fox's Aide, played by the actor referred to only as "Malone", seems to me to display a fine example of Star Trek Universe quality at its best: service beyond the call of duty. It's such small points which make the original series so good for me. In this case, we have a man of peace, "Malone", trained only in diplomacy yet willing to come under fire in support of his Ambassador without flinching. Every time I see the point where the Aide is hit and goes down, I think of all those real diplomats who have died in the service of humanity. Most recently, of course, we have had the notable and tragic example of the American Ambassador to Libya and his three staff members. Let us not forget them. It take real courage to go into such dangerous environments armed only with a belief in diplomacy. In this particular case, I found out from an on-line transcript of this episode that the "Malone" is wounded, not killed, so that settles my particular query. Thanks again for the replies.